The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. M/s. McDowell & Co. Limited
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 15693 of 1996
Petitioner: The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Respondent: M/s. McDowell & Co. Limited
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 15693 of 1996
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI, R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 19, 2001
Head Note:
EXCISE
Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968
Section 21 with Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970 – Rule 66(2) (As amended by GOMs 20 dated 12.1.1990) – Levy of duty – Amendment in rules not intended to calculate excise duty – Duty payable with reference to strength proof – Limit of tolerance varied to plus-minus, 0.5 degrees – Differential duty made payable if upto 24.5 degrees and licence not available if it is more than 25.5 degrees – Validity. Held the excise duty is levied on strength proof of spirit. Variation of 0.5 degrees has no relevance. Amendment is counter to Act and rules. Hence, were rightly struck down.
Held:
So far as levy of excise duty is concerned, keeping in view the schedule to the Act and the rules, which prescribe the strength, it follows that the excise duty is required to be levied – and continues to be levied – on per litre of the strength of proof spirit and that is the unit of assessment, of Indian liquor for the purpose of excise duty. Though a limit of tolerance of plus minus 0.5 PS is allowed in manufacture of IML by the impugned amendment, that does not alter the unit of assessment, which remains as before, so far as the charging provision contained in the Act is concerned. (Para 10)
Sub-rule 2(a) which prescribes that the tolerance will be purely for the purpose of administering the Act and rules and for the convenience of the manufacturers, however, goes beyond and says that it shall not be “for the purpose of calculation of excise duty”. The division bench of the High Court rightly found on this expression in sub-rule 2(a) that it would be a contradiction in terms. (Paras 11, 12)
For the purpose of levy of excise duty, it is this proof strength only which can be taken into consideration. The fact that on actual verification, the strength has been found to be 24.5 degree UP to 25.5 degree UP, which falls within the permissible limits of tolerance, is irrelevant for the purpose of levy of excise duty. The excise duty is to be levied corresponding to the strength which is prescribed. The High Court, therefore, was justified in holding that sub-rule (2)b and sub-rule 2(c) introduced by G.O.Ms. no. 20, were invalid. These two sub-rules are not only inconsistence with the Act and the rules but also run counter to the entire scheme of levy of excise duty, as detailed in the schedule to the Act. (Para 12)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Respondent, a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of liquor, has a brewery in the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. It was served with a notice dated 19.12.1984 by the commissioner of excise raising a demand for “differential excise duty” on the basis of variation of strength in liquor pursuant to an audit objection raised by the accountant general. The demand pertained to the excise years 1978-79 to 1982-83. The demand for the previous years had also been made but deferred, pending a decision by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the proposal made by the director of distilleries and breweries on a representation filed by the respondent. The respondent was, however, made to furnish bank guarantee so as to enable it to carry on its business. On 12th January, 1990, G.O.Ms. no. 20 was promulgated (published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette dated 8.2.1990), amending rule 66(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Distillery Rules’).
2. The amendment made to the rule reads thus:
“(2) Liquor shall be bottled at the strength specified by the commissioner from time to time.
A tolerance of plus minus O.5 PS is allowed in manufacture of IML with the following conditions:
(a) The tolerance will be purely for the purpose of administering the Acts and rules and for the convenience of the manufacturers but not for the purpose of calculation of excise duty.
(b) If the strength of IML is observed to be weaker than 25 degrees UP upto 25.5. degrees, the licensee shall not be eligible for any refund of excise duty.
(c) If the IML is observed to be stronger than 25 degrees UP upto 24.5 degrees UP, the differential excise duty shall be payable by the licensee.
(d) Sample of IML from each batch sent to the chemical examiner will be passed by the chemical examiner if it is within the tolerance limit of 24.5 degrees UP to 25.5 degrees UP. Samples falling beyond the above tolerance limit, will not be passed by the chemical examiner.”
3. The respondent filed writ petition no. 3359 of 1990 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for declaring rule 66(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970, as amended by G.O.Ms. no. 20, as illegal and arbitrary. It was also the case projected by the respondent that the amendment made on 12.1.1990 could not have retrospective operation and, therefore, the demand made for the differential excise duty for the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and for the period from 1977-78 to 1985-86 were illegal and un-sustainable.
4. The writ petition was resisted and in the counter, affidavit filed by the appellant, it was maintained that the levy of excise duty was linked to the strength of liquor and demand had been made on the basis of “actual verification of the strength”. It was, however, conceded that the G.O.Ms. in question, dated 12.1.1990 did not have retrospective effect and that was operative only from 8.2.1990, the date on which it was published. The division bench of the High Court, after considering the pleadings and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition in the following terms:
“We find that the words, ‘but not for the purpose of calculation of excise duty’ in rule 2(a), as well as sub rules (b) & (c) are invalid, as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and we accordingly, strike down these provisions. Consequently, levy of excise duty shall be based only on the accepted strength of the liquor produced and not on actual strength within the tolerance limits detected on verification at the time of passing the manufactured goods for issue. A writ will be issued as prayed for.”
5. By special leave, the state is before us.
6. Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 is the charging section and provides for levy of excise duty at a rate not exceeding those provided for in the schedule. Section 21(3) of the Act lays down that excise duty may be levied at different rates according to the strength of liquor manufactured. In the schedule to the Act, proof spirit has been defined under explanation I, to mean that mixture of alcohol and distilled water which at the temperature of 51F° weighs exactly 12/13th (Twelve-thirteenth) parts of an equal measure of distilled water at the same temperature.
7. The schedule, while prescribing the mode of levy of duty for different excisable articles prescribes the maximum rate of duty and insofar as Indian liquor is concerned, the maximum rate of duty is prescribed on the basis of per litre of the strength of proof spirit.
8. The Andhra Pradesh (Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1970 prescribes the strength of liquor in rule 42, which reads thus:
“42.Strength of liquor : No Indian liquor or foreign liquor other than gin, beer, weaker in strength than 25 degree UP shall be sold under any licence granted under these rules. In the case of gin, the strength shall not be less than 35 degree UP.
Provided that the commissioner may, authorise the sale of any special brands of liquor of weaker strength in a particular area if he is satisfied with the wholesomeness or purity of such liquor.”
9. It would, thus, be seen that under rule 42 (supra), the licensee is required to maintain the strength which is not weaker than 25 degree UP both in respect of foreign liquor and Indian liquor other than gin for which the prescribed strength is not less than 35 degree UP. Every batch of liquor that is manufactured, is treated so as to verify whether it conforms the degree is proof, as claimed by the manufacturer. Excise duty is an incidence of manufacturer of the excisable article. Rule 77 of the distillery rules provides for issue of manufactured liquor only after verification.
10. By virtue of the amendment effected by G.O.Ms. no. 20, the tolerance of plus minus 0.5 degree UP has been allowed in manufacture of IML (Indian made liquor) so as to govern any variation during manufacture. The purpose of providing this tolerance of plus minus 0.5 degree UP apparently is to see that if the manufactured liquor has a strength which varies between 24.5 degree UP and 25.5 degree UP, it should be accepted as fit enough for being passed for sale. However, so far as levy of excise duty is concerned, keeping in view the schedule to the Act and the rules, which prescribe the strength, it follows that the excise duty is required to be levied – and continues to be levied – on per litre of the strength of proof spirit and that is the unit of assessment of Indian liquor for the purpose of excise duty. Though a limit of tolerance of plus minus 0.5 PS is allowed in manufacture of IML by the impugned amendment, that does not alter the unit of assessment, which remains as before, so far as the charging provision contained in the Act is concerned.
11. Sub-rule 2(a) which prescribes that the tolerance will be purely for the purpose of administering the Act and rules and for the convenience of the manufacturers, however, goes beyond and says that it shall not be “for the purpose of calculation of excise duty”.
12. The division bench of the High Court rightly found on this expression in sub-rule 2(a) that it would be a contradiction in terms. Since the distillery rules provided for manufacture of liquor on the strength indicated by the commissioner, it is obvious that a manufacturer is permitted to manufacture liquor at 25 degree UP except where it is provided otherwise and, therefore, for the purpose of levy of excise duty, it is this proof strength only which can be taken into consideration. The fact that on actual verification, the strength has been found to be 24.5 degree UP to 25.5 degree UP, which falls within the permissible limits of tolerance, is irrelevant for the purpose of levy of excise duty. The excise duty is to be levied corresponding to the strength which is prescribed. The High Court, therefore, was justified in holding that sub-rule (2)b and sub-rule 2(c) introduced by G.O.Ms. no. 20, were invalid. These two sub-rules are not only inconsistence with the Act and the rules but also run counter to the entire scheme of levy of excise duty, as detailed in the schedule to the Act.
13. Considered thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court call for no interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
1. Respondent, a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of liquor, has a brewery in the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. It was served with a notice dated 19.12.1984 by the commissioner of excise raising a demand for “differential excise duty” on the basis of variation of strength in liquor pursuant to an audit objection raised by the accountant general. The demand pertained to the excise years 1978-79 to 1982-83. The demand for the previous years had also been made but deferred, pending a decision by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the proposal made by the director of distilleries and breweries on a representation filed by the respondent. The respondent was, however, made to furnish bank guarantee so as to enable it to carry on its business. On 12th January, 1990, G.O.Ms. no. 20 was promulgated (published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette dated 8.2.1990), amending rule 66(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Distillery Rules’).
2. The amendment made to the rule reads thus:
“(2) Liquor shall be bottled at the strength specified by the commissioner from time to time.
A tolerance of plus minus O.5 PS is allowed in manufacture of IML with the following conditions:
(a) The tolerance will be purely for the purpose of administering the Acts and rules and for the convenience of the manufacturers but not for the purpose of calculation of excise duty.
(b) If the strength of IML is observed to be weaker than 25 degrees UP upto 25.5. degrees, the licensee shall not be eligible for any refund of excise duty.
(c) If the IML is observed to be stronger than 25 degrees UP upto 24.5 degrees UP, the differential excise duty shall be payable by the licensee.
(d) Sample of IML from each batch sent to the chemical examiner will be passed by the chemical examiner if it is within the tolerance limit of 24.5 degrees UP to 25.5 degrees UP. Samples falling beyond the above tolerance limit, will not be passed by the chemical examiner.”
3. The respondent filed writ petition no. 3359 of 1990 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for declaring rule 66(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970, as amended by G.O.Ms. no. 20, as illegal and arbitrary. It was also the case projected by the respondent that the amendment made on 12.1.1990 could not have retrospective operation and, therefore, the demand made for the differential excise duty for the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and for the period from 1977-78 to 1985-86 were illegal and un-sustainable.
4. The writ petition was resisted and in the counter, affidavit filed by the appellant, it was maintained that the levy of excise duty was linked to the strength of liquor and demand had been made on the basis of “actual verification of the strength”. It was, however, conceded that the G.O.Ms. in question, dated 12.1.1990 did not have retrospective effect and that was operative only from 8.2.1990, the date on which it was published. The division bench of the High Court, after considering the pleadings and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition in the following terms:
“We find that the words, ‘but not for the purpose of calculation of excise duty’ in rule 2(a), as well as sub rules (b) & (c) are invalid, as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and we accordingly, strike down these provisions. Consequently, levy of excise duty shall be based only on the accepted strength of the liquor produced and not on actual strength within the tolerance limits detected on verification at the time of passing the manufactured goods for issue. A writ will be issued as prayed for.”
5. By special leave, the state is before us.
6. Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 is the charging section and provides for levy of excise duty at a rate not exceeding those provided for in the schedule. Section 21(3) of the Act lays down that excise duty may be levied at different rates according to the strength of liquor manufactured. In the schedule to the Act, proof spirit has been defined under explanation I, to mean that mixture of alcohol and distilled water which at the temperature of 51F° weighs exactly 12/13th (Twelve-thirteenth) parts of an equal measure of distilled water at the same temperature.
7. The schedule, while prescribing the mode of levy of duty for different excisable articles prescribes the maximum rate of duty and insofar as Indian liquor is concerned, the maximum rate of duty is prescribed on the basis of per litre of the strength of proof spirit.
8. The Andhra Pradesh (Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1970 prescribes the strength of liquor in rule 42, which reads thus:
“42.Strength of liquor : No Indian liquor or foreign liquor other than gin, beer, weaker in strength than 25 degree UP shall be sold under any licence granted under these rules. In the case of gin, the strength shall not be less than 35 degree UP.
Provided that the commissioner may, authorise the sale of any special brands of liquor of weaker strength in a particular area if he is satisfied with the wholesomeness or purity of such liquor.”
9. It would, thus, be seen that under rule 42 (supra), the licensee is required to maintain the strength which is not weaker than 25 degree UP both in respect of foreign liquor and Indian liquor other than gin for which the prescribed strength is not less than 35 degree UP. Every batch of liquor that is manufactured, is treated so as to verify whether it conforms the degree is proof, as claimed by the manufacturer. Excise duty is an incidence of manufacturer of the excisable article. Rule 77 of the distillery rules provides for issue of manufactured liquor only after verification.
10. By virtue of the amendment effected by G.O.Ms. no. 20, the tolerance of plus minus 0.5 degree UP has been allowed in manufacture of IML (Indian made liquor) so as to govern any variation during manufacture. The purpose of providing this tolerance of plus minus 0.5 degree UP apparently is to see that if the manufactured liquor has a strength which varies between 24.5 degree UP and 25.5 degree UP, it should be accepted as fit enough for being passed for sale. However, so far as levy of excise duty is concerned, keeping in view the schedule to the Act and the rules, which prescribe the strength, it follows that the excise duty is required to be levied – and continues to be levied – on per litre of the strength of proof spirit and that is the unit of assessment of Indian liquor for the purpose of excise duty. Though a limit of tolerance of plus minus 0.5 PS is allowed in manufacture of IML by the impugned amendment, that does not alter the unit of assessment, which remains as before, so far as the charging provision contained in the Act is concerned.
11. Sub-rule 2(a) which prescribes that the tolerance will be purely for the purpose of administering the Act and rules and for the convenience of the manufacturers, however, goes beyond and says that it shall not be “for the purpose of calculation of excise duty”.
12. The division bench of the High Court rightly found on this expression in sub-rule 2(a) that it would be a contradiction in terms. Since the distillery rules provided for manufacture of liquor on the strength indicated by the commissioner, it is obvious that a manufacturer is permitted to manufacture liquor at 25 degree UP except where it is provided otherwise and, therefore, for the purpose of levy of excise duty, it is this proof strength only which can be taken into consideration. The fact that on actual verification, the strength has been found to be 24.5 degree UP to 25.5 degree UP, which falls within the permissible limits of tolerance, is irrelevant for the purpose of levy of excise duty. The excise duty is to be levied corresponding to the strength which is prescribed. The High Court, therefore, was justified in holding that sub-rule (2)b and sub-rule 2(c) introduced by G.O.Ms. no. 20, were invalid. These two sub-rules are not only inconsistence with the Act and the rules but also run counter to the entire scheme of levy of excise duty, as detailed in the schedule to the Act.
13. Considered thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court call for no interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
